It's also etiguette to not waste someone's time by playing out a hopelessly lost position. When someone does that to me, all sense of etiquette goes out the window. Even an absolute rank beginner knows his goose is cooked when he's only got a king left and the opponent has rooks, queens, and pawns still on the board. There comes a point when playing on in such a position doesn't bring any educative value. When people step over that point in the game, it becomes the first act of rudeness. That's why I teach them a lesson for it by not delivering the immediate mate.

Also please note allowing checkmate is probably better if it is in a few moves, after your opponent did a marvelous queen sacrifice to send your king to the middle of the board or something. However, if your opponent has two pawns + king vs king, you might as well resign

Yup, I agree with this. If your opponent earned a checkmate, give it to him if its there in a few moves.

Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.

I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.

Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is.

Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

Well if an opponent wants to take the piss by not resigning in such a situation, I reserve the right to take the piss in return. If he is genuinely a beginner and unable to fathom what is going on I would be a bit kinder

No cjett. Weaker players maybe not resigning as been told to fight-on. That is no reason to humilate. Simple checkmate ASAP is enough.

Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.

I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.

Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is.

The game of chess has an objective & purpose. Checkmate your opponent & win !

Also I'd like to add that you are not really humiliating your opponent, your opponent allows himself to be humiliated (if you at all consider such positions humiliating).

Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons

Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.

I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.

Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is.

The game of chess has an objective & purpose. Checkmate your opponent & win !

Of course to do anything else is rude !!

Losing is rude? Drawing is rude? Forcing a threefold repetition in an otherwise losing position is rude? Really?

"Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons"

This is scary that he thinks that. There are a few ethical principles here that apparently nobody has taught you:

a) A person doing an unethical thing bears significantly more responsibility for it than a person who fails to stop it.

b) A person can be a victim even if they could have behaved differently and avoided it.

c) The morality of an act does not depend at all on whether or not someone else can stop it from happening.

From his profile, this is likely a guy who grew up in Bosnia during the '90's. Hmmm....

All of your points (a,b and c) are irrelevant. Try reading not skimming what I posted.

Also, could you please explain the bosnia comment, so you can clearly show everybody what kind of stuff you use to show your point. (btw. your assumption is false)

Person A is doing/about to do something (to/in regards to person B) which he does not think is humiliating (for himself in reversed roles and of course person B) and he does not know that person B find a it humiliating (which he does). Person B is able to stop/prevent person B but doesn't. Who is (more) at fault there?

Also, while doing something to humiliate somebody or even doing something that you know will humiliate somebody may be unethical I definitely don't view doing something with neither intent or knowledge of such a humiliation unethical, do you?

To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

And yet to pass such ignorant judgement makes you even more reprehensible. Like I said before, even a rank beginner knows the futility of fighting on against 4 queens against a bare king, so it is just as much my right to create an army instead of checkmating as it is his right to waste time playing on when resignation is appropriate. Why is it that people like you can't seem to comprehend how simple that is to understand? Are you really that thick-headed?

In blitz, I'll refuse rematches when they force me to play out an elementary checkmate. They lose the right to a rematch in my book.

You're not doing them or yourself any favours. If they don't know any better, then teach them how lost they are by being expedient about their defeat, and if they do, manage the amount of time you waste on them while practicing your efficiency.

In either case, the course of action should be the same and you don't have to concern yourself with speculating about their motivations.

Once a 1800 standard player was playing on against me in K+Q vs K. He had a habit of resigning later than normal, and I did once start promoting pawns to humiliate him. Onlookers gathered and started giggling, upon which resignation ensued and lesson learnt for the tedious bugger

the tournament director should throw out all who is giggling. onlookers should be quiet until the game is over.

promoting pieces can be wasting a tempo in some situations. your opponent may get a last attempt to do something or set a stalemate trap that some might fall into because of how certain you are in victory. it really depends on how lost the position is. as Josh Waitzkin said it: if you are on the edge of winning - you are also on the edge of losing the win. that is a funny thing about chess.there is hidden resources everywhere in chess.

Help us finish translating:

We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!